12 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Oi, womankind. There's more to that story by far than the bits you highlighted. Did you consider at all the effect of a spurious rape charge upon a man? It's one of our greatest fears, growing every year. And do you know what happens to rapists in prison, even the one that 'ain't done it'?

I think the least disturbing aspect of this story is the shame of a man having to attend his former place of work. It's bloody natural he would do so and besides, it pales alongside the shame (and fear) he would have felt every time (thousands) he popped his head outside this own front door.

You're using a certain disdain for the Police to trivialise the injustice visited upon this man. Thank goodness his wife stood by him at least.

@Paul, it's interesting that your take away from this story is that JuliaM is trivialising this man's ordeal because of her disdain for the police.

What I got from this story is that the whole legal system is now so biased towards the accusers of rape that the accused - even former police officers - are humiliated, degraded and maligned even when there is absolutely no evidence to support the rape accusation.

... the shame he felt at having to attend Greenbank police station... and see people you used to work with is horrific... I have only ever been on the other side of the counter so having to answer questions about such a serious crime was unimaginable.

Terrible ain't it!

There's an opportunity here for the police to learn something about their inhuman 'customer service' after one of their own has experienced it. Do you think they will?

I agree thats what one may get from the story, that is the whole story, but JM's bits of the tale and her higlighting suggested far less and in fact the moral was that everyone is equal under the law, even ex-policemen (and current ones), to which we would surely agree ...... and that as a result this man should have accepted the process of law as would anyone else. There was nothing otherwise that indicated sympathy for this man's or any other man's plight in these circumstances. Remember, the man was acquitted.

It seems to me like saying he should just bloody well put up with it whilst it drags on, as would any other man be forced to do so if accused. In essence (the fact he's an ex-cop) this is correct, but it's hardly a cry in aid of the increasing precariousness of mens' position under the law. There is after all, a certain gloating about the position he found himself in (because he was an ex-cop granted, not because he was male per se)

Nothwithsatnding I accept and believe Julia with regard to her opposition to spurious accusations.

Just to clarify, I have disdain for the polices' actions - not the police themselves. There are good officers still left.

Though they are getting very thin on the ground.

You are spot on about the bias in the system, though.

"I just think you needed telling."

That's what the comment section is for. It isn't a one-way conversation!

"There's an opportunity here for the police to learn something about their inhuman 'customer service' after one of their own has experienced it. Do you think they will?"

Not a prayer!

"...he still got treated the same as everyone else,you should be pleased about that."

See John's comment about how you treat everyone. Maybe it's time for a change?

"There is after all, a certain gloating about the position he found himself in (because he was an ex-cop granted, not because he was male per se)"

Not gloating so much as...'This is the system you no doubt championed and failed to speak up about while on the job, for fear of your career prospects. Now the jaws of the trap are closed on you, maybe you might like to reconsider?'.

There is, after all, in his statement (and I accept that the newspaper may have edited it) nothing to indicate that the process was wrong. Just a great deal of outrage and self-pity that it was applied TO HIM.

The difficulty is that because of how defamation law works, it is now a grey area for the MSM to explain anything about the case. But if you go back through the reports, the essence was this:

The alleged event happened in 2007 but was not reported for several years. When arrested, the man did not say one of the two fairly obvious things; either a) I never had sex at all or b) We had sex but it was consensual.

Instead, he danced around being a clever cloggs and was so busy playing word-games - 'I cannot admit to what did not happen' and 'no events of that sort occurred' - that he actually sounded dodgier than he in fact was. (Was he or was he not there that night? It's a simple enough question.)

There was still no actual evidence but there was an allegedly corroborative testimony. He is supposed to have admitted/boasted of an attack to an ex-partner.

Since the ex-partner was annoyed enough to give a statement to the police and to appear in court - which carries a risk of prosecution if the testimony is malicious - the case probably looked strong enough to prosecute.

Please note: I am saying nothing about the man who has been definitively acquitted. He is innocent.

I'm simply trying to explain that there may have been additional factors which could explain why the prosecution went ahead. Or it might just be another very bad call by the CPS; they do that a lot.